The medical repair of bones and joints and other tissue in the human body presents significant difficulties, in part due to the materials involved. Each bone has a hard, compact exterior surrounding a spongy, less dense interior. The long bones of the arms and legs, the thigh bone or femur, have an interior containing bone marrow. The material that bones are mainly composed of is calcium, phosphorus, and the connective tissue substance known as collagen.
Bones meet at joints of several different types. Movement of joints is enhanced by the smooth hyaline cartilage that covers the bone ends, by the synovial membrane that covers the hyaline cartilage and by the synovial fluid located between opposing articulating surfaces.
Cartilage damage produced by disease such as arthritis or trauma is a major cause of physical deformity and dehabilitation. In medicine today, the primary therapy for loss of cartilage is replacement with a prosthetic material, such as silicone for cosmetic repairs, or metal alloys for joint realignment. The use of a prosthesis is commonly associated with the significant loss of underlying tissue and bone without recovery of the full function allowed by the original cartilage. The prosthesis is also a foreign body which may become an irritating presence in the tissues. Other long-term problems associated with the permanent foreign body can include infection, erosion and instability.
The lack of a truly compatible, functional prosthesis subjects individuals who have lost noses or ears due to burns or trauma to additional surgery involving carving a piece of cartilage out of a piece of lower rib to approximate the necessary contours and inserting the cartilage piece into a pocket of skin in the area where the nose or ear is missing.
Surgical removal of infected or malignant tissue is disfiguring and can have harmful physiological and psychological effects. Regeneration of soft tissue, or tissue that mimics the natural properties of the removed tissue, can avoid or lessen these untoward consequences. Finally, a device which delivers a therapy could aid the regeneration of tissue, minimize risk of infection, and/or treat any underlying disease or condition.
The foregoing being exemplary, a device according to the teachings of the present invention is expected to add utility in many areas, see Table 1, which is meant to be expansive of the foregoing, and not limiting.
TABLE 1Examples of tissues and procedures potentiallybenefiting from the teachings of the present inventionBoneBone tissue harvestSpinal arthrodesisSpinal fixation/fusionOsteotomyBone biopsyMaxillofacial reconstructionLong bone fixationCompression fracturesHip reconstruction/replacementKnee reconstruction/replacementHand reconstructionFoot reconstructionAnkle reconstructionWrist reconstructionElbow reconstructionShoulder reconstructionCartilageMosaicplastyMeniscusDentalRidge augmentationThird molar extractionTendonLigamentSkinTopical woundBurn treatmentBiopsyMuscleDuraLungLiverPancreasGall bladderKidneyNervesArteryBypass SurgeryCardiac catheterizationHeartHeart valve replacementPartial organ removal
In the past, bone has been replaced using actual segments of sterilized bone or bone powder or porous surgical steel seeded with bone cells which were then implanted. In most cases, repair to injuries was made surgically. Patients suffering from degeneration of cartilage had only pain killers and anti-inflammatories for relief.
Until recently, the growth of new cartilage from either transplantation or autologous or allogeneic cartilage has been largely unsuccessful. Consider the example of a lesion extending through the cartilage into the bone within the hip joint. Picture the lesion in the shape of a triangle with its base running parallel to the articular cavity, extending entirely through the hyaline cartilage of the head of the femur, and ending at the apex of the lesion, a full inch (2.54 cm) into the head of the femur bone.
Presently, there is a need to successfully insert an implant device which will assure survival and proper future differentiation of cells after transplantation into the recipient tissue defect. Difficulties have been experienced with engineering the implant environment such that cells may survive, and also with supporting proper cell differentiation.
Presently, for example, cartilage cells, called chondrocytes, when implanted along with bone cells, can degenerate or dedifferentiate into more bone cells. Because hyaline cartilage is an avascular tissue, it must be protected from intimate contact with sources of high oxygen tension such as blood. Bone cells, in contrast, require high oxygen levels and blood. For this reason, the subchondral bone region of the device should be isolated from the cartilage region, at least so far as oxygen and blood are concerned.
Most recently, two different approaches to treating articular lesions have been advanced. One approach such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,041,138 is coating bioderesorbable polymer fibers of a structure with chemotactic ground substances. No detached microstructure is used. The other approach such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,133,755 uses chemotactic ground substances as a microstructure located in voids of a macrostructure and carried by and separate from the biodegradable polymer forming the macrostructure. Thus, the final spatial relationship of these chemotactic ground substances with respect to the bioresorbable polymeric structure is very different in U.S. Pat. No. 5,041,138 from that taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,133,755.
The fundamental distinction between these two approaches presents three different design and engineering consequences. First, the relationship of the chemotactic ground substance with the bioresorbable polymeric structure differs between the two approaches. Second, the location of biologic modifiers carried by the device with respect to the device's constituent materials differs. Third, the initial location of the parenchymal cells differs.
Both approaches employ a bioresorbable polymeric structure and use chemotactic ground substances. However, three differences between the two approaches are as follows.
I. Relationship of Chemotactic Ground Substances with the Bioresorbable Polymeric Structure
The design and engineering consequence of coating the polymer fibers with a chemotactic ground substance is that both materials become fused together to form a single unit from structural and spatial points of view. The spaces between the fibers of the polymer structure remain devoid of any material until after the cell culture substances are added.
In contrast, the microstructure approach uses chemotactic ground substances and/or other materials, separate and distinct from the macrostructure. The microstructure resides within the void spaces of the macrostructure. Additionally, an embodiment incorporating a microstructure may use materials such as polysaccharides and chemotactic ground substances that are spacially separate from the macrostructure polymer thereby forming an identifiable microstructure, separate and distinct from the macrostructure polymer.
The design and engineering advantage to having a separate and distinct microstructure capable of carrying other biologically active agents can be appreciated in the medical treatment of articular cartilage. RGD attachment moiety of fibronectin is a desirable substance for attaching chondrocytes cells to the lesion. However, RGD attachment moiety of fibronectin is not, by itself, capable of forming a microstructure of velour in the microstructure approach. Instead, RGD may be blended with a microstructure material prior to investment within macrostructure interstices.
II. Location of Biologic Modifiers Carried by a Device with Respect to the Device's Constituent Materials
Coating only the polymer structure with chemotactic ground substances necessarily means that the location of the chemotactic ground substance is only found on the macrostructure (e.g., bioresorbable polymer) fibers, thereby affording a two dimensional presentation. The microstructure approach uses the microstructure to carry biologic modifiers (e.g., growth factors, morphogens, drugs, etc.), however the presentation is analogous to a three dimensional presentation. Therefore, the coating approach has a limited capacity to carry biologic modifiers with the biodegradable polymeric structure.
III. Initial Location of the Parenchymal Cell
Because the coating approach attaches the chemotactic ground substances to the surfaces of the structure and has no microstructure resident in the void volume of the device, the coating approach precludes the possibility of establishing a network of extracellular matrix material, specifically a microstructure, within the spaces between the fibers of the polymer structure once the device is fully saturated with cell culture medium. The coating approach predetermines that any cells introduced via culture medium will be immediately attracted to the surface of the structure polymer and attach thereto by virtue of the chemotactic ground substances on the polymer's surfaces.
The consequence of confining chemotactic ground substances to only the surfaces of the polymeric structure places severe restrictions on the number of cells that can be accommodated by the coated device.
In contrast with the coating approach, the microstructure approach, by locating chemotactic ground substances in the void spaces of the device, makes available the entire void volume of the device to accommodate the attracted cells which then lay down their own extracellular matrix resulting in a more rapid and complete tissue regrowth or ingrowth.
One of the many objects of this invention, as will be discussed, is to protect and aid cellular ingrowth or regeneration of various types of new tissue, as well as providing methods of concurrent delivery of therapies and other treatments.